The first thing that comes to my mind about this famed author is a comment I read somewhere dealing with his "strong logical thinking". I guess the person who wrote this must have read some of his books to so believe; I didn't read any, therefore I cannot base my own view of that statement on the ground of his writings. To tell you the truth, all I have to build my particular logic from is a few articles on chomsky.info (you bet I didn't read them all) and a lot of videos on the web at large, starting with "Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media (1992)", all the way to his many recent speeches and interviews, more and more tedious as time goes or so to me it seems anyway. Let's not forget either, whatever the value one is to assign to age - and old age - in these and other matters, that Chomsky was born 1928 and has been an activist for a long time. The "rebel without a pause" has good reason to feel tired.

Tedious or not I've viewed most of them (trust me)and as it happens, on streaming media people are rarely seen thinking, they speak, Mr Chomsky more than most, and from all those talks I can hardly conclude that he is endowed with a strong logical discourse.
Not that you'll ever see him rave; heaven forbid! In fact, at first I rather found him of the nice guy type, set on fighting injustice around the world, a loud critic of US misbehaviour, not just a scholar. My love went sour when on some site, in some video [Go get it, no link], I heard him telling some audience about the "more peaceful nations", namely the United Kingdom, France and, of all, the United States. As for the european part of the trilogy, their relative innocuity (very relative indeed) comes more, I'm sure from impotence than humanitarian feelings - ruling classes do love ruling, worldwide, don't they, at any cost mostly. Now, as for the US ... wow! What kind of logical thinking would lead to such a statement? The value of the probably worthy information Noam Chomsky spent so much activism putting forward comes seriously diminished; how can words remain so slippery for a lifelong linguist?
I won't even begin to enumerate the misdeeds achieved by the Free Country since WW2, and before in a more modest way (insofar as an aspiring superpower will ever be modest), Mr Chomsky, in all certitude, knows it all, way better than me. Instead I'll have a few more remarks about his sayings.
In another clip, "Noam Chomsky on the 911 conspiracy theory", he has these words about the "huge industry, on the left" thriving on the events of september 2001. Well, well, well ... that I know of Mr Chomsky is not the least to roam those grounds, what are his words supposed to mean? Not everyone has the talent or the opportunity to head a department in one of the world's best known university, a major contractor to the US military, some might say, and others add that NC's speeches don't go cheap, which is all right with me, but why this sneering at other people's efforts? Because they are no followers of the one search NC has decided was of the utmost importance, "institutional analysis" as he may not call it himself but which is the only unifying word I found, after mean unacademic efforts, no need to say, which seems to describe what he exposes in the books I haven't read and probably won't read.
His articles may be fine as far as stating facts goes, but they have as much passion as their author, which is damn little and while this is by no means something anyone can be held accountable for it does tell me a little of the faith M. Chomsky has in his own creeds, or more accurately maybe, of the enthusiasm, if any, his research, his activism, his life have generated in him.